Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.
And this is why I shouldn’t post while having a headache.
Though the balance of my comment about Eisenhower’s faithfulness, or lack thereof, to his oath of office still stand on their own.
Democrats have been so successful in playing the Race Card against Republicans that some Republicans have come up with the idea of playing the Race Card Right Back - in hopes liberals will vote for the GOP.
That's not going to work for several reasons. For one thing, a lot of people are aware that Lincoln was a white supremacist. And people are generally aware that post-war northerners got very friendly very quickly with Jim Crow - segregation of races in the South by law and custom; segregation of the races in the North by custom and sometimes by law.
Oh yes, the North had the troops but they abandoned their supposed black allies quicker than you can say “Lincoln fought to free the slaves.”
The whole dam bunch..like you said. Both sides. Then Lincoln seemed to be another great military mind-in his own mind, for some time.
Until Grant managed to show them how to win. Yet the bastard Halleck seemed to think it was his right to run the war.
Politicians should be shot one at a time until they avoid the profession.
Those generals, were in fact good friends, many of them. Many lessor commanders also. To this day I can not fathom it.
If I remember my American History correctly, the XIII Amendment to the Constitution, you know the one outlawing slavery in the U.S., was certified as ratified, per the Constitution, on December 18th 1865. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
I grew up in the North, I never met a Southern kid until the 1964 Valley Forge Jamboree. I was taught that certain of the domestic customs of the South were unjust and unfair, and I suppose that was so.
Nevertheless, we sang Dixie and Bonnie Blue Flag in school, along with Columbia the Gem of the Ocean and Rally Round the Flag. I was taught, and I still believe, that giving honor to the defeated Americans of the Confederacy was not only compassionate but also patriotic and wise.
It was, and is, both patriotic and wise because we had to live together again. We, reunited, made a strong and a great nation.
I believed that then, and so did my teachers. I still do.
Lighten up Francis.
I hate to disagree with Dr. Williams, but the United States did not start with the ratification of the Constitution of 1786. The Declaration of Independence was a collective statement (”...in Congress assembled...”), asserting a combined and United sovereignty and independency. Some colonies/states did issue individual declarations as well. Congress the formed the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Which called for a permanent union. The Treaty of Paris was signed with this United States, not with each ex-colony.
The Convention of 1786 was called under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, to amend them. It was not creating a government de novo, but reforming an existing one. This is shown by the ratification process prescribed. The Constitution becomes effective when ratified by 2/3 (?) of the States, and implicitly becomes binding on all the United States, including any which had not yet ratified it. Had the intention of the Delegates been otherwise, the Constitution would have gone into effect as soon as ratified by any two States, but applied only to those States which ratified it; the rest would have continued to be governed under the Articles of Confederation.
On the original question, although the Constitution defines treason as making war on the United States, the government did not choose to prosecute any of the generals of the CSA as traitors, indicating that as far as they were concerned (at least the majority), they were not.
Wow. If you're that down on Lincoln for white supremacy and the North for racial discrimination then you must really hate the Confederate leaders and the South in general for those very same reasons.
Welcome to History 101. America was like every other nation in the world at its founding... there was slavery. Blacks owned slaves in the South, as did many Whites... BUT, the VAST majority of Whites did not own a single slave. The Civil War began because the North was determined to impose its will on the South.
Gosh, do I believe slavery is wrong? Yes. Thanks for assuming that it’s 2017.
Slavery? Only the rewritten history which you obviously subscribe to would attempt that argument. Even Lincoln declared that he would allow for slavery if the South would just submit to the will of his government. Just fyi... Every nation on the Earth recognized slavery at that time... Even your precious Northern aggressors.
It’s over, and America is united. Just stop pretending like 500,000 dead Americans was a good thing... K?
Low hanging fruit, which suits the uninformed. Slavery bad? Jeez, you got me there. Care to notice that it’s 2017 and time to stop believing in fairy tales about the Civil War?
The South did not implement Jim Crow.. the Democrats in the South did. It’s 2017 Iffy, time to unlearn the lies about the Civil War.
My point is Republicans are not going to be able to successfully Play the Race Card against Democrats. Lincoln is one reason.
Republicans need a better strategy. Trump was not my first choice but he is right now putting on a clinic on how to destroy Democrats.
A soundbite I remember is that cotton made slavery pay. So it was a dying institution during the Constitutional Convention. Only later did Eli Whitney invent the cotton gin. Therefore before that time profits from slavery belong essentially to the Northern traders and the Northern mills. I have always wondered why Southern planters did not form cooperatives for vertical monopolies that produced clothing and textiles as well?
Were William and Mary?
Monmouth?
Cromwell?
Charles I?
Eventually, you get to a point where people don't remember or care anymore.
It would be nice if cadets at West Point learned that anybody who'd take the oath and then lead armies against what was their country was dangerously irresponsible, though.
Teaching them that such behavior was praiseworthy could have bad consequences for the country.
” . . . and implicitly becomes binding on all the United States, including any which had not yet ratified it.”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data?
“It would be nice if cadets at West Point learned that anybody who’d take the oath and then lead armies against what was their country was dangerously irresponsible, though.”
Those that say “Lincoln and the North fought to free the slaves” need to read and comprehend what you have written.
FIFY
A distinction without a difference.
Simple question for you, why did the southern press and politicians call republicans “black republicans?” Why did they call Abraham Lincoln “Ape Lincoln?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.